Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz Discusses “The Price of Inequality” with The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart

Nobel Prize winning economist, Columbia Professor Joseph Stiglitz sits down with The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart to discuss how and why there is a lack of equality of opportunity in the United States.

In Part 1, Professor Stiglitz argues that the nature of the economy of the United States has changed significantly within the last 30 years, both for the better and for the worse.

In Part 2, Jon Stewart and Professor Stiglitz discuss the level of perceived fairness individuals have about how the economy is run.  While regulation for small and large businesses is essential, they discuss how regulation can be effective without being redundant.

In Part 3, Professor Stiglitz discusses the ways in which Social Security can continue to remain viable.  Both Jon Stewart and Professor Stiglitz zone in on how can we manage risk more effectively to make the economy more efficient.


Get our newsletter

I'd like to get more stories like this.
Email address
Secure and Spam free...


  • Katherine says:

    Reads like a condensed version of events for those that have not been keeping up. Which leads one to conclude that if they haven’t been keeping up with the basic geopolitical economics, what use a recap would be to them?In my view, NAFTA and other so called free trade agreements have been very damaging, not in the terms of the predicted great sucking sound but in the terms of a slow and accelerating shift from the principles of full employment to a focus on inflation control as practiced by adjusting the employment valve. I believe that inflation affects the rich more because it devalues their substantial holdings. The poor have few holdings to devaluate, although in the immediate timeframe the costs of staples may make their lives more challenging. The rich will be unaffected by cost of living increases, but will be greatly impacted by rampant inflation on their net worth. Hence the focus of inflation control . It’s good for the poor, but really, really good for the rich. And if we jettison a few million employees on a yearly basis in order to keep inflation in check, so be it that be the cost of the fuel that runs the engine.As for the rest of Stiglitz’s litany; well, that’s well and good, but this is a two party system and both parties are part and parcel of the same system. Will the Democrats cut defense spending from it’s obscene rates? Not likely because people would point out the demonstrated shortness of their penises. Will they address universal health care and allow American businesses to be more competitive on the global market? Not likely; the dysfunction inherent in the healthcare system is great for big pharma and the medical professional community. And besides, even with universal healthcare and an improved infrastructure, with Chinese 16-year olds working 15 hr days at $0.26/hr for Walmart, making Christmas ornaments.Will they aggressively approach AGW? Not likely, since on the face of the planet, our standard of living has the farthest to fall in a situation requiring disciplined distribution of resources. Consider the French royalty during The Revolution had they been more accommodating and cooperative, they may have survived with their heads attached, but it was never in the works. Their nature was such that royalty never considered elevating the concerns of the rabble to their status; it was a concept totally foreign.I may well be wrong, and it would actually be great to be wrong in this case, but optimism != realism.

Submit Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *